Laughing
Well-known member
There is quite a bit wrong with your post Coluka.Oh I am gonna be unpopular here
It isn’t seen as de rigueur to highlight such things as some on here will have you categorised in all sorts of boxes that aren’t true, but I agree with you. The sheer volume of males that are crossing rather than families fleeing war is not going to stop, Climate change will help continue the trend, the more that stay, the more will be encouraged to keep coming.
Getting a routine GP appointment 4 years ago meant ringing up and getting a routine same day appointment, now, it is awaiting a non medic noting your personal bodily matters (hopefully correctly) a medic of sorts then triaging someone elses notes that may not always convey the issue accurately and then awaiting a call from a GP in roughly 4-5 weeks if it is deemed non life threatening. Migrants (i am told) are somewhat fast tracked in certain surgeries as they are in part incentivised by contract according to a local GP’s wife.
Some areas, the balance of males and females will be ‘increasingly strained’ the assumption that they are all fleeing war and persecution is for the birds. This imbalance will only lead to further issues in time. They often lose their passports and other I.D’s en route and on arrival many seem to adopt false narratives to play the system. This is unfair to those genuinely needing our help fleeing wars etc. We have to find a way to deal with this fairly not just for migrants but our indigenous population. To take a stance of open borders is going to increase poverty, strain public services, housing and create hate speech and further right wing fervour it is simply too much of a strain on our economy. I appreciate the need to help where we can, we must where reasonable, but we need to accept that our own poor and more vulnerable citizens are suffering as a result. I get the impression (maybe wrongly, maybe not) that many on here who are taking the moral high ground are reasonably well off and as such wont be always as impacted as say many lower down the salaried scales.
I will finish by saying my part solution is to use our Embassies abroad as posts where asylum has to be claimed, processed and decided before travelling to the UK, but that would need agreements and brexit has not helped, it has made it worse and where is the incentive for other countries to play ball? We are sleep walking into a position where civil unrest will become regular for future generations If someone does not get a grip. Some small part of the migration is on record as being actively encouraged by certain other countries to destabilise. We need to help and do our bit, not be a welcome doormat for anyone that wants to come. However, I don’t feel any political party is brave enough to tackle it as it is becoming almost impossible to do without being seen as extreme.
First and foremost, we have an international obligation to asylum seekers, and rightly so.
The issue isn't the number of asylum seekers we are seeing, although these are increasing as moe and more people are displaced by war and economic or agricultural issues. The issue is how we deal with them. If you don't process them, the tax payer has to home and feed them. Processing of asylum applications has plummetted and it's by design. Have a look at this chart and look from 2010 onwards. Currently, we are for all practical purposes, not processing asylum claims. This means they don't work, nor pay taxes. They are a drain on our resources and contribute nothing. That is by design of every tory government in our lifetime.
The UK’s asylum backlog - Migration Observatory
This briefing note examines what we know about the UK’s asylum backlog, its causes, and its consequences.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk
The point raised about most of them being economic migrants. They are not. Curently 24% of claims are refused, although we don't process nearly enough. That figure of 24% being refused has dropped year on year. So no most are not economic migrants. Furthermore if we bothered to pocess them, the economic migrants would be refused asylum and returned to their country of origin, without having to pay their government a penny. This sharply contrasts with the Rwanda scheme.
A point was raised about most of them being male and over 18. The article below sets out some facts around where the womend asylum seekers are and why mostly men travel to Europe. The imbalance you talk about wouldn't happen as the adult males get processed and accepted then bring their families. Or, get processed, rejected and sent back to their country of origin.
5 Reasons Why the Majority of Refugees Reaching Europe are Men
Here are five reasons and explanations of why the majority of Syrian refugees who reach Europe are men. The danger of the trip is just part of the reason.
www.globalcitizen.org
It isn't some nefarious reason, or hidden terrorists sneeking into the UK. There are obvious reasons why Isis don't do this in large numbers. They can radicalise anywhere in europe and send them on a commercial flight to the uk. Or better still radicalise someone from Birmingham and send them to London on the megabus with a bomb.
BobUpandDown isn't some edgy thinker. He is either stupid, a racist or a tory shill.
